Is there a middle ground on pornography?

There is a decided “yuck factor” to the pornography industry. Critics justifiably maintain much of it is cold, exploitive, abusive, objectifying, phoney, repellent, linked to prostitution and human trafficking, especially degrading of women, obscenely profitable, relationship-destroying and addictive.That’s the kind of judgment the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada essentially made last month when it denounced the decision by Canada’s television regulator to approve the expansion of a pay-TV pornography station.When the Canadian Radio-Television and telecommunications Commission (CRTC) declared that 20 per cent of the hot-and-heavy programming on the sex station, called Vanessa, must be “Canadian content,” an Evangelical Fellowship official was outraged.He claimed the government agency was encouraging young people to enter Canada’s porn industry.It’s the touchy kind of controversy we’re likely to hear more about as a result of the dramatic expansion of telecommunications technology, which has made possible a pornography explosion.Pornography is now easier to order than pizza, and, unlike in the past, the process is more private and cheap. At the click of a few buttons, an X-rated universe can open up to almost anyone through the Internet, cable TV and iPhones.Pornography is a $13-billion-a-year industry in North America, sometimes involving major corporations. According to the Internet Filter Review site, 44 million Americans and Canadians visit a porn site each month.Some stay on for a few minutes, while others troll sex sites for more than 15 hours a week.Most keep it secret.To therapists, there is little doubt pornography can become an obsession, destructive to individuals and relationships. It especially torments the roughly three to five per cent of the North American population whom researchers estimate are sex addicted.In response to this eruption in electronic sexuality, the anti-pornography movement is also growing.It has brought together an unusual coalition of bedfellows, including conservative Christians and Muslims, feminists and social critics who say pornography rips apart community life and replaces it with escapist fantasy.In his new book, Empire of Illusion: The End of Literacy and the Triumph of Spectacle, acclaimed author Chris Hedges has a chapter titled The Victims of Pornography.“Porn, which advertises itself as sex, is a bizarre, bleached pantomime of sex. The acts onscreen are beyond human endurance. The scenarios are absurd,” Hedges wrote, after visiting a pornography convention in Las Vegas.“Pornography does not promote sex, if one defines sex as a shared act between two partners. It promotes masturbation. It promotes the solitary auto-arousal that precludes intimacy and love. Pornography is about getting yourself off at someone else’s expense.”Because there is much that is sordid about the pornography industry, it brings out such strong emotions.That leads to most discussions of pornography quickly breaking down into stark, black-and-white camps. While one side denounces all pornography as degrading, another counter-argues that most opposition to it comes from those who are “uptight” and “prudish.”This second camp says certain kinds of pornography can build strong relationships.Can society find a middle ground on pornography?Before answering that question, it’s necessary to hammer out some definitions.The Oxford Dictionary defines pornography as “printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than esthetic or emotional feelings.”While this definition is helpful, it doesn’t get at the many differences between at least three related categories of what is often called pornography: hard-core pornography, soft-core pornography and erotica.Hard-core pornography depicts sexual acts between consenting adults. It is generally legal in Canada, but not when it involves coercion or people under 18 years of age.The CRTC, as well, forbids broadcasting sex acts that include violence, and it insists such TV programs must offer “equitable portrayals” of the sexes.Soft porn, on the other hand, generally refers only to depictions of men and women in sexy poses, typically in various states of undress, but not always naked.Soft porn is commonplace in men’s and women’s magazines, from Sports Illustrated‘s bathing suit edition to Cosmopolitan.Erotica, the third category, is often defined as depictions of healthy sexuality.While it can be graphic, erotica is meant to show the beauty of sex. It’s designed to enhance mutual enjoyment of the body and strengthen human connection.Many feminists have adopted a pro-erotica position, including the women who have owned and successfully operated Vancouver’s Womyn’sWare Inc. since 1995.It is a shop on Commercial Drive that some might consider pornographic.It caters to women by merrily displaying a raft of sex toys and leather ware on its shelves and website, including its signature book, The Ethical Slut.In addition, even though conservative religious leaders often lead the battle against pornography, not all religious and spiritual people are automatically opposed to graphic depictions of sexuality.Religious history is full of images and texts that might be considered erotic, if not pornographic.Hinduism, Greek mythology and Chinese classics offer many bold images of sex between women and men. Jewish mysticism, including the Song of Solomon, frankly employs genitalia as living symbols of the male and female aspects of God.Many scholars, in addition, believe Jesus of Nazareth enjoyed sensuality. Mohammed is also thought to have been a passionate fellow, a polygamist who treated women much better than was customary during his tribal era. Nowadays, most bookstores are packed with titles celebrating sex and spirituality.What can contemporary Canadians learn from the increasing presence of erotica and pornography? Without minimizing the downside of the pornography industry, some are exploring whether it can be redeemed.A recent issue of Psychotherapy Networker, a professional magazine for mainstream North American therapists, was devoted to teasing out the cons and potential pros of the pornography boom.One piece, titled De-pathologizing Pornography, described in detail how partners could overcome their revulsion toward pornography to learn more about themselves and their partners, and enhance their love life.As the popularity of pornography and erotica rise to unprecedented heights in the digital age, the uncomfortable issues they raise are increasingly becoming unavoidable. They need to be brought out from the shadows of secrecy.Although the line is often fine between healthy erotica and des tructive pornography, a broader discussion would improve the chances more people could learn to discern the difference.

J Brisby, can you distinguish a difference between a snuff film and a CSI episode? Can you fathom the importance of being vigilant against child porn? Tarring an entire topic with a lazy brush is just that – lazy thinking. Once you develop compassion, if you do, as to how and why porn can be damaging, you might be able to take part meaningfully on the topic rather than just disparaging the writer and the discussion. Are your other views as unsupported? Perhaps a thread or blog that doesn’t attempt thorough analysis of issues with grey areas would be best for you to sample. Oh, and people can be obsessive, I agree. Obsessively on the defensive, for example.

This is a pretty lame column. I’m tempted to say it could have been written in the fifties, but that doesn’t quite do it…it’s downright Victorian! Like when Todd says that people can become obsessed with porn. People can also become obsessed with Jodie Foster, but how is that her fault? If we banned everything that people form unhealthy obsessions over, I know a certain Religion reporter who would be out of a job! Bottom line: it’s impossible to make a case that pornography is dirty and degrading to women without building it on the assumption that sex in general is dirty and degrading to women. Try it yourself and see.

RE: Criminal Code and Human Rights Act, I understand Mr. Todd is only doing his job as a messenger/journalist, and was not an attack towards Mr. Todd in any way. Just a GENERAL awareness towards some offensive posts and unintentionally sounded rather harsh.

Jonn, I’m always interested to hear your point of view, and your perspective as a more senior person. This time I tend to disagree with you. While it would be counter-productive to try to ban all porn, there is no doubt that it has been bad for many people exposed to it and for people involved in its production. The industry could not care less, and just laughs all the way to the bank. In the UK a kind of legislated middle-ground used to exist, where no nudity of a single adult was considered obscene, but the depiction of certain situations was banned. As a result, the subtext of British porn in the past was relatively innocuous, something like: “Here’s a beautiful young woman. She likes sex. She really does, I’m not lying. In fact she likes it so much, she might even want to have it with you.” Now with the internet, the message and the content have changed, and the situation is beyond policing. Young people including children are being sexualized by exposure to it, and I suspect, short-changed in their future relationships with real people. I don’t generally like quoting lyrics, but this from Roy Orbison / k.d. lang (Till The Heart Caves In) seems to sum up the quality of the situation: “For I’ll steal your dreams while you are sleeping And sell them for dust And cheap lust And I’ll turn your hope while you are weeping And cover your eyes With sad lies And dark skies.” Personally, I don’t buy the “erotica/porn” distinction that many commenters try to make. Too convenient for them, in my view. I agree with you on only one point: relationships with real people are superior beyond measure.

The discourse in this piece is somewhat colored by the fact that a Romanian organized criminal group /religious cult called MISA is producing “spiritual” pornography / erotica, much of it starring vulnerable young girls, some of whom have no idea to this day that their intimate moments on camera have been exploited as pornography. Some of the girls in some of the movies were under 18 years of age when they were filmed. The MISA pimp guru Gregorian Bivolaru owns countless porn websites, brothels, massage parlors and strip clubs, all staffed by brainwashed cult members. One of Bivolaru’s websites, sublimerotca.com shows MISA yoga and tantra teachers acting in “spiritual” porn. If you were to check out the website you might think that this was an spiritual group of open minded friends making ethical porn, whereas nothing could be further from the truth. MISA is active in Canada and is recruiting young Canadian girls for its brothels and porn films, all under the guise of spirituality. Anyone can see a very explicit film they made called “the Magic Passage”. It is on google videos and start MISA yoga instructors and VIPs Mihai and Adina Stoian under their porn names of Paul and Claire Diamond. The film promotes being a porn actor in urination themed porn as being something that will accelerate your spiritual development. Bivolaru was recently acquitted of charges relating to sex with a minor person (the judge was probably a corrupt MISA member, just like the “porno judge” Simona Lungu) but is still facing charges of people trafficking and various other charges linked to organized criminal activities. Any serious journalist writing about porn and spirituality should IMO firstly research MISA and the trail of devastated families and ruined lives it has left in its wake.

CAROLT: I’m surprised at your offense at my use of the word prostitute. I didn’t call you or your mother one. Do you fall in the poor reader class? Using the word in the context I wrote it, I stand pat. I had another friend long ago who married a street working prostitute. They had six kids and I hope they’ve enjoyed a long, happy marriage. I think prostitution under proper conditions and reasons is an honorable profession for female or male. Its known that locally many high status married women with children are working escorts, er – a – as prostitutes, that is. They do it because they like it and earn money. I think its honorable to call a spade a spade, and if it doesn’t fit you don’t try to wear it. Cheers. Jonn Mick

You’re not sounding like a prude Jonn. Just crass. Words have a certain flair and style. They don’t need to be used like a two-by-four, for shock value. My mother is not and has never been a prostitute. You have to be pretty shallow to insist on a view of women like you’re trying to peddle. How about “lover” for male or female. How about “mutual affection” rather than “performance”. To each his own, but your use of ‘prostitute’ is dehumanizing.

GEORGE L: You surprise me. You’re sounding like a prude. Or is it a dried prune? Not all the females starring in pron movies and magazines are prostitutes. In fact one of my long ago friends married a working porn actress. She stopped working after marriage and became a prostitute mother and wife. Theirs was by observation one of the best unions I ever observed. As a prostitute mother the lady kept the guy satisfied and he stayed home. I hope they’re growing old together. Society needs brothels for needy men and women, but absent of pimps. Of old, the temple priestess took care of the spiritual and emotional needs of the priests. Today, priests, because of screwed up ideas of morality, abuse young boys and girls that we don’t hear about. Are the kids prostitutes or abused kids? Porn has always been and will always be. Addiction to it will always wear off as people age. That is if mama will perform like my friend’s wife did, keeping him home. I’m sure he finally got to the stage where when he went to bed he gratefully kissed her and rolled over after saying goodnight. Cheers. Jonn Mick

Porn is an “addiction industry” – like legal booze or illegal drugs. So-called progressives are always recommending a public health approach to drugs. When will there be a public health approach to porn? Some random observations – 1) Porn is like binge eating of junk food – no, worse – brightly-coloured artificial candy. No nutritional value. Guaranteed to make you throw up later. A very bad counterfeit of the real thing. 2) Since the coming of the internet we have been in uncharted territory. Nobody knows what the long term effects will be on people growing up with unrestricted access to porn of every kind. I hope it will not destroy the ability to make happy, lasting relationships. 3) The professional “actors” and “actresses” in porn are prostitutes. Definition: people paid to have sex. Many of the women are said to be survivors of child abuse. Users of porn are often reaping the benefits of other people’s misery. The English word “brothel” derives from the same root as “broken” – the place where the broken people are. 4) No middle ground will be possible without a stronger effort to police the internet. Most western societies will not stomach any form of internet censorship. I wonder how many people’s support for “internet freedom” is motivated partly by a desire to self-justify their enjoyment of questionable pornography?

Jonn Mick., You sound like a typical North American. In Europe such things are completely different and bodies aren’t regarded as a taboo. I myself used to go to W.B. quite often when lived on UBC campus and it was so close. Now I live in Surrey and it’s harder to get there but it’s my favorite place to go and just be “in touch with nature” and go for a swim. There are pervs out there walking around with cameras or weirdos going there (what you are suggesting?) go have a look? That’s it sick. My take on this is, if you go you either uhm, get on with the culture or don’t go at all. Like I say this is a great place and last refuge when one can be in touch with nature and relax.

I wonder how Wreck Beach would be treated as a porn subject? Its a wonderful place to go to see nudity in all kinds of shapes, sizes, and colors, young, old, male and female. On any given warm, sunny day there are many nude bodies walking, visiting in groups, spread eagle on the sand, and some up the their waists in cold water. And the viewing gallery on the cliff above, men and some women with binoculars at their eyes attempt to remain out of sight among trees and foliage. For many years during the 70’s and 80’s I enjoyed the exhilarating freedom of nudity regularly with friends and many families. It was a community of like minded people. It was often frequented by fully clothed bible thumpers and their entourages assuring us we were indecent, violating God’s laws, and we were sure to end up in Hell. But it wasn’t until the boozers and druggies succeeded to make the beach an unpleasant place to be that bible thumpers stopped going there also. I miss them and the beach. And JOE, aside from the movies and other public media, the 50’s and 60’s wasn’t as sterile as you think. What you lament as being sterile was the bible thumping influence. The Hays days committees. Ever hear of Payton Place? That depicted the world of humanity, past, present, and forever. Go to Wreck Beach to have a look. You’ll find that only SOME of the young bodies, mostly under 25 year olds. are worthy of being porn Pin Ups. The rest of us are much more attractive fully clothed. Cheers. Jonn Mick

re: Homer I’m suggesting there actually IS absolute truth that is right/correct/true despite what anyone else’s opinion is on the subject. For time’s sake just use gravity as an example: you will not only look foolish but will mosy likely be injured or killed if you seek to deny the absolute truth of gravity – it continues to be true and work whether you agree with it/accept it or not. Of course comments here affect others! you illustrate my point by responding to my comments and now i’ll return the favor by responding to yours. Surely, things will affect others to greater or lesser degrees. Posting comments here might have very little effect while a slow (or fast) acceptance by a society of moral degradation will undoubtedly affect us all in much more devastating way.

carolt and Victor : Thanks for reminding me of a favourite tune by Carly Simon tune + lyric from “back in the day” : “We can never know about the days to come But we think about them anyway, yay And I wonder if I’m really with you now Or just chasin’ after some finer day Anticipation, anticipation Is makin’ me late Is keepin’ me waitin’ But these are the good ol’ days…” And while Seriously! clamours for a world with absolute values all agree on, Joe fundamentally has it right. We do live in a secular (sexular?) society. Note how very few ads on t.v. do NOT employ some manner of sexual come-on to help shill their products — even when the suburban moms are depicted to sell Swifters or whatever they are always drop-dead gorgeous, never one or two pounds overweight or with buck teeth or a harelip. As with so many issues it’s the words we use to classify them. I agree the word “porn” should be reserved for grossly sexploitive materials. The rest of the titillating stuff (so to speak) — including countless scenes in popular shows like The Sopranos or Madmen — has got to be left to the discretion of adult viewers, even if it augurs the end of civilisation as Seriously! worries it will.

99.9% of ordinary, law-abiding people today support the banning of pornography that involves children and teens, bestiality, rape, violence, and other such totally demeaning, sick, and unecessary garbage. Those who are into this kind of stuff should be prosecuted. Internet providers should work harder at eliminating this stuff. But when it comes to sex between consenting adults, most people also agree that this is part of freedom of expression. A lot of people certainly enjoy it, because it’s the number one attraction on the Internet today. So the word “porn” should be used only for the criminal stuff, and “adult sexuality” for the legal, adult entertainment. If it bothers you, why watch it?

Goes to show how stupid protectionist talent content quotas can take you. Pornography is a multi-miilion dollar industry, so why not the rulers of this fine nation promote a Canadian “product”. They’ve gone full tilt on the sin of gambling for revenue, why a claw back on pornography. Canada will do anything to increase their tax coffers, it has nothing to do with a Canadian “identity”, otherwise we wouldn’t be saddled in this maze called “multiculturalism”.

uInteresting to read many of these responses. What seems to be present in each one are the underlying assumptions that 1) there is no absolute truth about anything thus “how dare you tell me how i view something is wrong” and 2) it’s possible we all live in some sort of human vacuum where i can do whatever i want and it doesn’t effect those around me and then society as a whole. Seriously! You can’t operate from this worldview and last as a society.

“Lesbian movements, feminists, girls that play hard to get then get back at you for harassing them.” Poor Victor, God’s Gift to Women, stuck not only in the past century but also thinking he’s still in the Old Country, never having learned that no means no, believing hard-to-get-girls just wanna be stalked, Macho Man meets The Future, and it’s an ugly sight.

You gotta see it in a big picture. Society creates this problem and it’s all connected. Lesbian movements, feminists, girls that play hard to get then get back at you for harassing them. Why can’t it be like in the good old days????? It’s not easy being a guy these days 😦

As someone who grew up in the totally sterile ’50s and ’60s, when married couples in movie and TV had to sleep in separate beds—when there was no such thing as nudity, four-letter words or sexual references at all—–when they still banned great works of literature like “Ulysses” and “Lady Chatterley’s Lover” because they were considered “filthy” and “obscene”—–I think it’s no wonder that there has been such a huge revolution in sexuality. The Catholic Church is typical of the disgusting hypocrisy and repression that used to be everwhere in society in those days, when they made people feel that sex is dirty and evil—— yet thousands of priests and bishops were secretly sexually abusing young people, mostly boys! So what is “pornography”? In fact, it’s the honest reflection of human sexuality—- like it or not. As long as it is between consenting adults, it’s freedom of expression—–and those who don’t like it shouldn’t look at it. Better to allow sexual freedom today than to suppress it as dirty and evil, like we did 50 years ago.

It amazes me at the reaction to sexuality vs violence. We should be far more concerned about violence yet we are exposed to it daily in just about every form. Children see people in movies, video games, TV, etc and few people seem to be concerned, yet if a breast is exposed to a young person every “moral” person is up in arms (e.g. the very brief exposure of the partially exposed breast of Jackson on national TV). Get your priorities straight people. Violence and especially violence in sex is of far greater concern. If you want to be concerned, be concerned about violence, physical, mental and emotional and stop getting so upset about nakedness and sex between consenting adults. Violence is far more disruptive to a society.

“Man’s legacy is the knowledge of good and evil.” I think that should be “a diversity of opinion about good and evil.” One person’s god is another’s devil. One viewer’s erotica is another’s pornography. One believer’s cult is another’s religion. “The Universe has as many different centers as there are living beings in it.” ~ Alexander Solzhenitsyn

Brent Lane is on the right track when he suggest that Mr. Todd’s three categories could be grouped under the ‘erotica’ designation as all three have arousal as the objective. However, the term ‘obscene’ is a different type of animal and a somewhat judgemental type of animal. The designation of ‘obscene’ transcends sexuality and can be applied to religion, war and business. For creators of images and stories, the three terms are relatively simple to understand. Erotic implies a certain emotional attachment even if its just for the night and there is usually some sort of foreplay. The sexual encounter is most often softened through metaphor and light. Soft-porn does not require the same emotional attachment and the focus is on the sex act as a pleasurable encounter for both partners. In literature, words and images address the feelings rather than a description of the operation. In the soft porn industry, the male is never completely undressed or revealed. Why the female is has always puzzled me. Hard porn has both participants undressed and if there is any fore play it is short and to the point. In literature, graphic descriptions are a must and in film, multiple angles of the operation are required. In fact, the different camera shot have their own names. Also, for some strange reason, the women wear high heels throughout. Gay porn has its own set of rules. Erotica you would watch with your mother in law in the room. Soft porn you would watch with your wife in the room. Hard porn you would watch with your buddies or alone. In the latter case, plot lines just get in the way. I would disagree with MSB in his counsel to women to ‘have sex with your partner’ more often. Obligatory sex is like hard core porn, just a bit better than a good sneeze. Also, the low frequency of sex may also be the fault of the male. Remember that the brain is the best sex organ we have.

Personally, I find the word “pornography” to be one of those pejorative words that really has no meaning or purpose, other than to subvert an honest discussion before it even gets started. Calling stuff “pornography” is like calling people who don’t share your socio-political views “hippies” or “fascists”. it merely sets up some preconceived values and implies that what we’re talking about is by definition, “wrong” or “dirty” or “immoral” or “demeaning” or just plain “bad”. Usually, when the word “pornography” is used, the cultural associations and social baggage that comes with it virtually ensure there can be no truly meaningful exchange of ideas about it. If we’re talking about images and writings that are designed to sexually arouse, there are only TWO kinds: there is “erotica”, which are images and writings of a sexual nature, designed to stimulate, and which are legal. Some erotica involves emotions like affection and love; some doesn’t. And there is “obscenity”, which has a very specific legal definition, and to create or distribute it is criminal. There really is nothing in between. Mr. Todd’s attempt to break the genre down into “erotica”, “soft-core porn” and “hard-core porn” and examine them as three distinct things is unhelpful at best and obfuscatory at worst. it’s like trying to differentiate “light pink” from “dark pink”. One person’s light is another person’s dark, and some people object to pink of ANY shade, so the exercise is pointless. I’ve read Mr. Hedges’ brief opinions on “erotica”. Then I substituted “science fiction” for “pornography”, replaced “science” for “sex”, and “orderly study” for “intimacy and love”. Having done that, Mr. Hedges’ objections read very much like a radio sermon I heard “Bible” Bill Aberhart give in the early sixties, decrying science fiction writing and warning it would bring about the downfall of mankind and/or the Wrath of God. For this kind of sloppy, glib generalization, the writer is “acclaimed”? Sheesh!

“the rooster’s opinion of man” thanks for the bird’s eye view. are the bees about to enter the mix also? will there be sex? even the so-old-they’re-nearly-dead would be bored into the next world by your comment.

The hallmark of civilization is that man employs logical reasoning to justify every evil act that is necessary to exist and survive as a society. That logic, of course, is always biased to suit man’s convenience. Man cannot cope with the evil on his conscience. So he seeks a scapegoat. God is his scapegoat. God gives him permission to call his evil acts good. In order to give his commands credence and to teach man to distinguish in such a way so that he may survive he calls some harmless acts, evil. Man is commanded to do this to survive, as man can only survive on that which has lived before him. Man takes lives so that he can perpetuate his own life. In the final chapter, God sends a scapegoat of all scapegoats so that man may be absolved from all blame and clear his conscience while justifying and continuing to perpetrate his selfish and evil acts. The man thanks God and seeks his blessing for the meal in which his family is about to partake. God is good. God is not evil. Man is inherently evil. That is the rooster’s opinion of man. The rooster does not share man’s enthusiasm for his role in the family’s dinner and continues to protest vehemently for several minutes after his head is lopped off, all to no avail. God is good. Man is evil. ______________________________________________________________ The moral of the story: Porn is no more inherently evil than eating meat in order to survive. Neither is there, as Jonn Mick., states, a middle ground.

There is no middle ground on pornography. Its as old as humanity. An integral part of the sex drive. Some people, male and female, are turned on by pornography, others tolerate it, and others lie about it. When my sons were just past the age of puberty and showing a lot of interest in girls and overhearing them talk about it in normal early teenage jargon I bought books of pornography for them and, although sex comes naturally, I talked with them about the joys and risks associated with sex, and then left it up to them. They were never infected by disease, accused of date rape or fathering a child. They married and produced many beautiful grandchildren for me. I don’t know if they still look at pornography. But as they age they probably feel like I do. Sex can be a terrible bore because as the passion for sex fades so does the sex drive. And as a man I see other men who are horribly compromised by sex. And I’m sure this works for both men and women. But I still enjoy seeing and knowing pretty women. It keeps me feeling young without the risks. Now, lets continue hearing from the hypocrites that trashed Tiger Woods for his sex behavior. He’s probably devouring pornography books since his wife has probably got him staked out in pasture doing penance. Cheers. Jonn Mick

Most activity today is passive. Persons watch sports on TV, but do not actively engage in sports themselves. Similarly with sexual activity. In today’s hurried and impersonal world the opportunity for personal relationships to develop does not exist. Porn fulfills the need. As easy as ordering a pizza, porn may be purchased so that its customers may experience vicariously what may not be convenient to do otherwise and is a natural outcome of the demands of today’s corporate culture. With schedules that do not coordinate, shifts that do not match, fears of disease that might materialize, programs that must not be missed, attitudes that must not be traversed, pressures of the workplace that cannot be discarded, real sex has become relegated to a clinical exercise that is about as exciting as eating spinach. Porn fills the gap, is cheap, convenient, exciting and the timing is always right. Perhaps porn may be considered middle ground. Like farting in a public place, that embarrasses the host more than the visitor, the act is not evil per se and no one condemns the perpetrator.

MSB- it’s a bit chicken and egg- if men are using porn as their bible, so to speak, on how to have sex with their partners, I’m guessing their partners won’t be very interested…it has nothing to do with feminism. If anything, feminism allowed women to take charge of their sexual lives which may have sent less confident men who couldn’t muster to their online substitutes…

Man’s legacy is the knowledge of good and evil. The issue appears clear cut but is really obscure in that values derive from class position. Is the bun fight at dinner good or evil? One class is shocked at the practice. Another class is at best amused if not altogether bored of the spectacle, but this same class of persons is shocked at the vulgarity inherent in someone spitting on a sidewalk. Is porn evil? (I have never viewed porn TV or video myself). A secular society must decide the issue. Paul’s directive in Romans Chapter One was aimed at curbing the sexual practices of the Greeks (that was copied by the Romans). Based on the logic of reason no holds were barred if the activity did not result in injury to any person. Paul changed that attitude. In crafting the Christian Religion all abhorrent and/or deviant sexual practices were declared evil and forbidden. (By extension these principles include porn). Not because anyone is physically injured, but because these activities are a violation of God’s law. A secular society derives its values from logic resulting in similar conclusions to that of the Greeks. Other than an age of consent to set out when sexual activity is lawful to my knowledge no holds are barred. If the activity harms no one then there is no reason to prohibit that activity. Hence, there is no justification for excluding Canadian content from a porn TV channel when other legislation requires a minimum proportion of Canadian content in all broadcast programming, since this inclusion does not violate any secular law, but excluding Canadian content does break the law. —Mel

Its too bad that western feminism has created the “pussy deficit” which has created the explosion of pornography. women, if you only have sex with your partners a few times a month, what do you expect them to do?

` And if the girls don’t have Canadian flags tattooed on their butts, I will do my civic duty and immediately report them to the CRTC. LMAO A Pay-TV pornography station? People pay money for that homogenized government-sanctioned crap? God bless the internet. The FREE site I go to has hundreds of links for porn from all over the world. Africa, Amsterdam, Arabian, Argentina, Asia, Australia, Brazil, China, Japan Germany, etc. They have a link for Twins. Thy even have a link for Midgets. If anyone has trouble sleeping at night, this CRTC sanctioned Pay-TV channel will cure the problem. The CRTC has managed to make sex boring.

“The Oxford Dictionary defines pornography as printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, intended to stimulate erotic rather than esthetic or emotional feelings.” It also defines erotic as sexually attractive or exciting. I’ve heard that some men use certain types of produce for a form of masturbation, and may therefore be excited by the sight of grapefruit, or bananas. I wouldn’t be surprised if bananas did the trick for some women, too. But the bottom line here is that some sections of your local grocery store are therefore pornographic. So to be safe, leave the kids at home when you do the shopping, eh?

This is a topic on which agreement is impossible, given human natures and ego. On the headline, for example, “a middle ground” is impossible when you consider that many people think Victoria’s Secret catalogs are pornographic. As for sex ed in school, that can’t happen at any efficient level because their are too many parents who don’t want their kids to know, to the point where they bullied the government years ago to give them the right to pull their kids out (no pun intended, Carlolt) of sex ed classes, and even some health education classes. Also, I cannot full agree with TTesty’s comment about puritanical spirit trying “to sanitize life as if it were a sacramental offering”. They don’t care about any sacraments except those of their own church and think their children must be isolated from all independent thought, lest they learn to think for themselves. And to really complicate things, consider that the true problem is mostly an inability to agree on what we mean when we use given words. “Apocalypse” comes to mind since it originally meant “the revelation of hidden knowledge,” not the end of the world; Paul changed that. In this case, the Oxford definition of “pornography” that Douglas Todd provides can be met without involving any abuse, violence, or even sleaze.

When I grew up in 50’s, my father always had Playboy around the house. He kept buying it until he died, I think. Around 30 years ago or so, I was in T.O., saw Bob Fosse’s film, Star 80. Fosse (and Cliff Robertson’s) performance brought it home to me that Hugh Hefner is really just a jacked-up pimp. Dorothy Stratton died because of that pimping. Since then, my personal porn experience is zero. I devoted all my time to real women. I remember, from Steinbeck’s Cannery Row, the bums won’t hang around with the bar-keep. He can’t understand why these disgusting penniless hoboes won’t hang with him, who’s got money and access to booze. One day the bar-keep overhears one bum mutter as he passes them by, “I can’t abide a pimp.”

Unaccustomed as I am to join in a discussion about sex (in this case “pornography”) I will nevertheless endeavour to utter a few words. We are indeed sensual creatures. Nature (if you prefer this term) gives us the opportunity to enjoy to the fullest extend the pleasure of sexual copulation with all our senses. Even though to therapists “there is little doubt pornography can become an obsession, destructive to individuals and relationships” we have to realize that we do live in a fallen (“imperfect” if you prefer this term) world. Sex is no longer exhibited in its “purest form”. If we accept in its entirety the Oxford dictionary’s definition of “pornography” (as stated in this article) then we must agree “pornography” is purely for the physical and does not involve the spiritual. “Sexual copulation” (in all its mystery of pleasures) to a loving couple on the contrary goes deepest than and beyond the flesh (at least in my book). So is there a middle road? Like all matters involving ethics and moral the line on the sand is indeed very hard to draw. To me I say yes so long as the production of pornography does not involve “abuse” and it is watched by consenting adults in the confine of the privacy of one’s bedroom. It may be naivety to think and wish that it cannot be watched by minors in this digital age. The choice is ours to make.

Criminal Code of Canada Sections 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code make it a criminal offence to: advocate genocide publicly incite hatred wilfully promote hatred against an “identifiable group.” An identifiable group is defined as any section of the public distinguished by: colour race religion ethnic origin sexual orientation Online communications that advocate genocide or wilfully promote or incite hatred are likely to fall within the provisions because the Internet is a public network. Canadian Human Rights Act Section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act prohibits the communication by means of a telecommunication undertaking (including the Internet) of messages that are likely to expose a person to hatred or contempt on the basis of: race national or ethnic origin colour religion age sex sexual orientation marital status family status disability

It has brought together an unusual coalition of bedfellows, including conservative Christians and Muslims, feminists and social critics who say pornography rips apart community life and replaces it with escapist fantasy. If that’s not the pot calling the kettle black. Religious zealots saying porn is an escapist fantasy. Are you kidding me? I would just as much like to see religion banned as pornography. I don’t think there is a single thing that makes me as upset as the pious do.

Carolet wrote: Discussion could be helpful when it comes to a more mainstream/public realm problem: bullying. I see in-person discussion as being the most promising medium. Having kids debrief and discuss together, their experiences of being bullied, or even of being the aggressor, might well help them understand how to be more caring toward one another; candid discussion in a safe space might empower the kids to make positive changes. Is this a retraction for your previous posts?